Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I had hoped, as the Minister knows, that we might have reached this amendment last month, in the same week the Government published their long-awaited violence against women and girls strategy—which would have been appropriate—but I left him to debate another extremely important issue. It is a pleasure to open the proceedings on the Bill in 2026 with this amendment.

I am sure all noble Lords support the Government’s ambition of halving violence against women and girls. The challenge with any such strategy is of course in its delivery. Securing safer public spaces for women and girls is essential, and safer streets was of course a key demand, and continues to be, following the terrible murder of Sarah Everard. But there are of course many places where women and girls feel unsafe, and that includes trains and public transport.

I noted this paragraph, on page 65 of the Government’s December strategy, which is headed “Every corner of public life will be safe”:

“Women and girls must both feel safe and be safe in every aspect of public life. … Safety is not just about reducing risk, it is about creating environments that foster confidence, dignity, and freedom of movement. Design and planning are critical tools in achieving this. Well-lit streets, accessible transport, and thoughtful urban design can deter violence, reduce opportunities for harm, and send a clear message that public spaces belong to everyone. By embedding considerations of VAWG into planning and transport guidance, we can ensure that safety is built into the fabric of our communities, making public spaces welcoming and secure for all. To support this, we”,


the Government,

“will update national design guidance to reflect a VAWG perspective, ensuring that safety considerations inform how public spaces are designed”.

Turning to this amendment, I think that the Committee should be aware that, since 2021, there has been an alarming rise in violence against women and girls on our railways—it is up 59%. Sexual offences specifically have risen by 10% and harassment is up 6%. To put this in actual numbers, in 2022-23, there were 2,475 sexual offences; that was up from 2,246 the year before. In 2021, 7,561 crimes against women and girls on railways were recorded by British Transport Police; that had risen by 2023-24 to 11,357.

It is therefore no surprise that these crimes are now classed as a national emergency by the National Police Chiefs’ Council. Due to this, nearly two thirds—63%—of women say they avoid travelling alone, and even women who continue to use public transport often undertake what is called “normalised behaviour”, like being very choosy as to where they sit or assiduously avoiding making eye contact with any fellow passengers.

Of course, numbers tell only half the story. For each survivor of an offence or an attempted offence, their experience stays with them, as we heard just in the last couple of weeks in the powerful testimony given by Her Majesty the Queen. But there are of course many others who have bravely shared their experiences of vulnerability in a place that they should not feel vulnerable at all. It is clear from the numbers I have just given to the Committee that action is needed to ensure measures can be put in place to reduce this level of crime against women and girls on our national rail network, and the Government need to take a lead on this.

This is, of course, a probing amendment. The wording in subsection (1) would place a clear duty:

“The British Transport Police must take all reasonable steps to prevent violence against women and girls on trains”.


Subsection (2) sets out what such abuse could entail but is not limited to those offences. Subsection (3) sets out what “reasonable steps” must include. The reason that this is a probing amendment is that I suspect that the Minister will tell me shortly that this is not the right Bill for such an amendment, so I want to take this opportunity to say that, while I might have some limited sympathy for his argument—

He is looking slightly surprised, so perhaps I have pre-empted his argument or that is not the argument that he is going to make, in which case I will be delighted. But if it is, Ministers will not be able to use the same argument in the forthcoming Railways Bill, where the Government will be accepting a clear responsibility for what happens on trains operating as part of their newly nationalised services.

The reason for subsection (3) is that enforcement after the event for perpetrators is not sufficient if the Government are to stand any chance of cutting violence against women and girls by 50%. Prevention is key to achieving anything like that goal. The suggestion in subsection (3) about what could constitute “reasonable steps” is vital if we are to move to a preventative and safety-by-design model. A crucial first step would be, as the amendment suggests, the sharing of data about cases and levels of violence against women and girls between the British Transport Police and the rolling stock companies. Of course, this is not just about violence against and women and girls in relation to passengers but is highly relevant to female staff operating on the rail network.

Following Royal Assent of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill 2024, the Department for Transport instructed DfT Operator to assume responsibility for train operators’ ownership in England and provide

“safe, secure and sustainable transport”.

However, since then, there has been no clarification as to how this will occur. These amendments provide a way in which there can be a review of safety issues and standards on trains.

Better and more synchronised technology, subject to government standards and fitted at the point that a train is manufactured, would truly create that safe, secure and sustainable transport. It would also ensure that the Government could have true oversight of this issue and that all modern technology and innovation used by rail operating companies to help drive confidence in passengers, especially women, that are used by manufacturers subject to a gold standard. In addition, as long as manufacturers have the option not to include extra specifications that cost them money but do not seem to bring them monetary benefit, and merely bring societal benefit, they are less likely to install such measures, especially in the current economic environment, where every penny will count.

It is worth remembering that the previous Government created the secure stations scheme, which emphasised collaborative working and station design that deters crime and aids the safeguarding of vulnerable individuals. Using advanced technologies created by innovative companies that provide rolling stock with custom-made parts and technology, these amendments would allow the extension of this scheme to further improve passenger confidence. Just including more CCTV is insufficient. Design features such as improved lighting deployed by companies such as Belvoir Rail are very relevant here.

This amendment is an early opportunity for the Government to show that they are ready to stand behind their December violence against women and girls strategy. It would also demonstrate that delivery of the strategy is a priority across all government departments and is not just being left to the Home Office. I beg to move Amendment 356A.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes. My proposed Amendment 356F is complementary, in a sense, to hers. My amendment would create a specific offence of assaulting a transport worker at work. It would be an equivalent protection to that given to retail workers by Clause 37 of the Bill, and there is of course existing legislation protecting emergency workers. I confess to a certain unease in proposing specific offences for specific groups of workers, but in the case of transport workers there are particular circumstances which justify an offence to protect them.

There has been a marked increase in violence against transport workers. Of course, the situation was highlighted by the multiple stabbings at Huntington on 1 November 2025. But violent offences against rail staff increased by 35% in 2024, according to the British Transport Police Authority. The overall increase in both incidents and the severity of violence against transport workers is to be noted. Of course, it is not just railway workers; transport workers protected would include those on the Underground, the Metro, trams, ferries and buses, and all other transport workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will give consideration to that with my colleagues in the Department for Transport. As somebody who travels every week on the train to this House, “See it. Say it. Sorted” appears on my journey on a number of occasions—in my case, in both English and Welsh. The noble Lord makes a valid point: there should be an acceptance and acknowledgment that the type of antisocial behaviour which he has referred to, at a low level, can be intimidating for individuals. The ability to undertake physical violence in the extreme form that allegedly took place in Huntingdon—I have to use the word “allegedly”—and the low-level abuse that might occur are significant issues. Transport staff on railways, from whichever railway company, and the teams that are operating require the support of the state to give them that back-up.

Under the current legislation, I believe that my noble friend’s amendment is not necessary. However, the general principle that we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and other speakers, including my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, via the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, is absolutely valid and was well worth raising. I hope that I have been able to give assurances on that and that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, will withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could find time in his busy timetable to see me and the RMT about this, because I did not quite understand what the distinction was between the creation of an offence of assaulting a retail worker at work, in Clause 37, and assaulting a transport worker at work, as in my amendment. I take the point about an aggravating factor in sentencing but the question is really about the creation of an offence. It seemed that there might be room for further discussion outside the Chamber.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend mentioned his noble kinsman, my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, who is the Transport Minister. The British Transport Police are the responsibility of and answer to the Department for Transport. My other noble friend Lord Hendy is the Minister responsible for transport. If I may, I will refer that request to the Minister directly responsible for that policy in this Bill, so that they can consider what my noble friend has just said.

There is a distinction between the existing legislation that I have mentioned, which provides security against attack for public-facing workers, and the Clause 37 issue, which we have already debated. We may undoubtedly return to this on Report in several forms but, in the meantime, I would be grateful if the noble Baroness would withdraw her amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the War Memorials Trust. I am grateful to the Government for including Clause 122 in the Bill and what I have to say goes to my noble friends’ Amendments 369A and 369B.

I have some quick questions for the Minister. First, where can I find the Government’s definition of a war memorial? It is clearly important that there is one. Secondly, I make the point that certain war memorials are specifically designed as immersive experiences or paths people can walk or even climb on—examples are the Carnoustie war memorial and the tomb of the unknown warrior. Can I assume that the walker or climber will have to rely on the defence that he or she had the consent of the owner or occupier of the war memorial? Thirdly, on Clause 122, I ask the Minister— I know we will come to this in more detail in due course—why Schedule 12 is confined to 24 war memorials, which I think are simply the top 24 from the national heritage list. He will know that there are tens of thousands of war memorials across the UK and that many more than 24 are very important and in prominent positions, and therefore arguably just as vulnerable as those listed in Schedule 12.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I raise a point on Amendment 378B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. Unless I have missed something in that lengthy amendment, the effect of it might well be to interfere with the exercise of the right to picket in an industrial dispute. The right to picket is protected by Section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act and, in a lawful industrial dispute, by Section 219. I doubt that that was the intention of the mover of the amendment. Is it possible to have some clarity on that point?

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is my intention, and I believe it is the case—possibly the Minister will confirm—that my amendment would not change one iota. It would simply incorporate all the current regulations from the 2023 regulations and move them verbatim into the Bill, making it a primary case. It would not change any of the provisions at all. If there are technical drafting issues then they can be corrected later, but there is no intention to change any of the concept.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hendy Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 359 and will also speak to Amendment 361, both of which are in my name. I am hugely grateful to my co-signatories, the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friend Lady Harding, and I thank them for their support. I am also grateful to the Minister for meeting me and his noble friend Lord Hendy. I am only sorry that at that meeting we were unable to persuade him of our case, and I hope I can do a better job tonight.

My amendments replicate Clauses 38 and 39, which introduce a new stand-alone offence of assault against retail workers, but simply expand that offence to include all public-facing workers. I am bringing these amendments forward because the Government’s decision to make the new stand-alone offence exclusively for retail workers is based on arbitrary factors that make little sense, risks making matters worse for employers and employees alike and does not help address the cause of increased violence and disorder in public places and spaces, which causes us all so much angst. In a moment I will explain briefly how my amendments help to address the latter, but let me start with what is wrong with the Government’s approach and how my amendments can help put it right.

As we all know, the crime of assault applies equally to anyone who is a victim of it. No one is not covered by existing law. But four years ago, we introduced an aggravated offence of assault against all public-facing workers via the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act because violence and threats of violence to workers across all industries—retail, transport, hospitality, finance and more—were rising at a worrying rate. Now this Government argue that they are introducing a new crime of assault against only retail workers because violent abuse in shops continues to rise and because those workers are charged with upholding retail laws such as those involving age verification.

Of course it is horrific that some retail workers experience violence at work. They do not deserve that, and we all want it to stop. That is why I support Clauses 38 and 39. But other public-facing workers are experiencing increasing violence too. Many of these workers are also responsible for upholding laws and are required to take action when a member of the public flouts them, which they increasingly do. The most obvious example is transport workers and the scourge of fare dodging, but bar staff also routinely need to seek age verification.

The Institute of Customer Service—I declare my interest as the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Customer Service—has been tracking abuse against all public-facing workers for almost six years. Its most recent survey data from 15,000 responses shows that 42% of customer-facing workers experienced abuse in the preceding six months.

The problem that the Government have highlighted as one they need to fix is not affecting retail workers exclusively. Indeed, some of the worst cases of violence in a public place are against utility workers doing essential work on streets. Yet the Government’s approach even excludes those who work in bank branches, post offices and other outlets on high streets or in retail parks. What makes matters worse is that those workers fear they will not be treated equally if they are a victim of crime because they will fall outside the definition of a retail worker.

We need good people in these front-line jobs who are doing great work to want to stay in these jobs. But the Government’s arbitrary dividing line means we are in danger of losing them. That is not just bad for those workers: it is bad for customers, and it is bad for business. Sick leave associated with abuse and violence experienced at work is estimated to cost the economy at least £1 billion every year.

I must say at this point that we must not lose sight that, thankfully, most public-facing workers are not at risk of assault. Indeed, it is really important to make clear that customers are not the enemy, and we must not create an environment where, even unintentionally, they are made to feel like they are. We do not need more signs telling us not to be rude or abusive, but we do need a new approach. Alongside a better response from the police when crimes do occur, if we are to prevent violence against workers and any criminal conduct in public places becoming normalised, we must work together to discourage low-level disorder and disrespect for shared services and public property when we see signs of it taking root on our high streets, public transport or anywhere else. But that requires leadership from the people in charge of those public spaces and places. Most often, they are not the workers who are the highest paid.

It is not easy to uphold the shared standards and social norms that keep public spaces safe and orderly for everyone’s benefit, which is why those who are out there at work every day upholding the law and doing their best to maintain the common bonds that underpin a strong society do not just deserve our thanks: they need our strong backing for the leadership they are expected to give—and we need them to give—if we are to tackle disorder, which blights our communities. That is what my amendments seek to provide.

Excluding some workers from the cover of this new stand-alone offence risks disincentivising those excluded at a time when we need them most. Business leaders, workers and the wider public support these amendments. I hope that the members of unions and the former leaders of unions who occupy the Benches opposite will also support them. I hope the Minister accepts them. If he does not, I will seek to divide the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendments 359 and 361 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston. On the basis of those amendments, I will not advance the amendment I proposed in Committee for a stand-alone offence for transport workers. My amendment sought to give transport workers equivalent protection to that to be extended to retail workers by the Government in Clauses 38 and 39, but the noble Baroness’s amendments cover transport workers, retail workers and, as she mentioned, many more categories of workers who face the public and are exposed to the risk of violent attack by individuals apparently aggrieved by a worker doing what he or she is paid to do.

In proposing these more widely drafted amendments, there is no intention to diminish the coverage the Government are already offering retail workers. If there is some perceived shortfall in the scope of our amendments compared with that of Clauses 38 and 39 for retail workers, I for one would be very happy if the Government instructed parliamentary counsel to close that gap in drafting.

I thank my noble friend the Minister for meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and me to discuss the amendments, notwithstanding that, as she says, he was not persuaded by us. With respect, I am likewise not persuaded by my noble friend’s justification for restricting the scope of the offence under discussion to retail workers only. The commitment given in the Labour manifesto would be equally fulfilled by adoption of our amendments in place of Clauses 38 and 39. Retail workers would have, and must still have, their manifesto protection. In any event, though it may result in duplication, our amendments do not involve a request to remove Clauses 38 and 39. That is not their purpose.

As to the argument that the wider amendment is not necessary, I point out that even if that were legally correct, the adoption of Clauses 38 and 39 and the rejection of the wider amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, sends a particular message both to the workers in question and the public, as she pointed out. She mentioned violence against various categories of public-facing workers, and I gave figures for violence against transport workers at an earlier stage of the debate. I will not repeat those, but the House should know that the situation is getting worse. For example, British Transport Police figures for the period April to November 2025 showed a 21% increase in incidents involving violence against staff compared to the previous year, which itself showed a similar increase on the year before that. The stabbings at Huntingdon in November 2025 bring the point home.